Lee

I think the higher effective firepower advantage of a good SMG in close quarters in CM is well justified. An MP40 is extremely deadly at 50 yards and less (where a large portion of combat happens), able to pour fire in large volumes exactly where one wants it, in the hands of a skilled operator. And magazine changes are very fast. Enabling a high sustained ROF.

That is very strange. I've never seen a tank fire a defensive grenade at another vehicle. It never occurred to me they would even try such a thing. Must have been a real surprise for the truck drivers. haha

I'd love to see Combat Mission 2 make the cover of Computer Gaming World. Just seeing a wargame on the center of the cover would be a nice change of pace (that hasn't happened in awhile, IIRC). And since CM2 is one of the very greatest computer wargames of all times, it certainly deserves to make the cover.

Olle Petersson: Good point on hull down. Which just made me think of a great feature that I hope either CM2 or CM3 (with the new CMII engine) will have... degrees of hull down. It would be great if the engine could allow for maybe 3 states, once hull down is achieved. Partial hull down (just some of the lower hull is protected), mostly hull down (lower hull and some of upper hull covered) and full hull down (everything but turret protected). With the corresponding reduction in hit chances and even spotting (due to the much smaller effective profile of the tank (from the hull down angle only, of course)) and with any hits only being allowed to strike uncovered portions. That would make for some very realistic hull down simulation.

This is the improvement I most look forward to in CM2. In CM MG crews get ripped off on their real capabilities. I'm glad to see that in CM2 they will really get to show what they can do.

Yes! It's been a long time, but the day is near. Can't wait to see the HUGE list of requested improvements that actually got implemented! This is going to take CM realism to another level (which is saying something, since CM is already, by far, the most realistic computer wargame of it's type, ever). [ July 14, 2002, 04:37 PM: Message edited by: Lee ]

ParaBellum: Could you be a little more specific about the context of that quote? If you're talking about meeting up with French civilians (who's side we're on and we're trying to liberate), that might be one thing. But if your behind the lines on recon in Germany and a some German civilians run into your patrol, you certainly can't have them reporting your group to the nearest German HQ and getting all your men killed. What choice do you have? You might not have much, depending on the exact circumstances.

Last chance, guys. Bring forth another source to back this up now, or be forced to wait for a patch, if you come up with further evidence later. I would have thought more sources could have been found by now to present to Steve.

Is there any more evidence for this shortage? Time is running out.

Dittohead: Have you been able to come up with any other sources to back this up? I think Steve commented he'd like another source or two before modeling this in CM2. Now is the time to get him the info. so it can be included. [ April 22, 2002, 06:49 PM: Message edited by: Lee ]

Wow! This has been one of my long-time requests on the boards for CM2. But I never thought we'd get such a vast selection of planes! This will enable scenario designers to tailor the threat level they want the air support to represent in a scenario. As well as provide historically accurate plane types for the time period the scenario covers. Great job, Charles! As always, you deliver above and beyond expectations. [ March 11, 2002, 11:39 PM: Message edited by: Lee ]

Skipper, I sent the latest CM turn file to skipper_cm@(same last part of address you were using 8 months ago). So you should have received it by now. Let me know if you didn't get it.

Skipper: What is your current e-mail address? I want to make sure I send the latest CM turn to the right address. I've been waiting for your next turn from our CM battle for a century.

Dittohead brings up a good point. Russian tanks that are affected by this extreme shortage of AP rounds early in the war could be simulated by applying severe limitations on AP rounds for certain Russian tanks if the battle takes place in the first several months of the war. This would apply to tanks chosen in QB's as well the standard loadout in scenarios. Of course, in the case of a scenario, the designer can tune the loadout as he likes. The same way that CM checks now for availability of tungsten rounds and such depending on the month the battle takes place in.

40mm, eh? Interesting. But I would guess that the rate of fire of the twin 30mm's would make for a more effective hit rate, even though they wouldn't hit as hard per round landed. Either one would be bad news for enemy aircraft or infantry.

It seems M Hofbauer has even found the very document showing that the Germans trained their soldiers to use the MP-40 as I have said. Good work. Yes, the MP-40 should be held on the magazine well, not the mag itself. You wouldn't want to transfer any movement in the magazine up into the feeding mechanism. That would generally apply to any any magazine-fed machine gun, be it submachine gun, assault rifle, machine rifle, LMG, etc. This isn't a problem at all, though, as there is plenty of room on the MP-40's magazine well to hold the gun quite firmly. And as I said, it handles very well when held in this way, whether you are using the stock or not. I think it has the best handling characteristics of any of the submachine guns I've used thus far.

Well, we're talking about vehicles to include in CM2 (or II); so, yes, WWII AA guns only. But if BTS does a more recent CM, then I definitely expect to see the Vulcan included (and the Shilka for the commies). P.S. That M15A1 sounds pretty neat, but I'll still take the twin 30mm's on the Kugelblitz. [ February 14, 2002, 03:40 PM: Message edited by: Lee ]

I'm not sure what the official training policy on this was, but I would expect that the soldiers were trained to transition from the stock to the grip on the magazine well when the fighting got in close. That is the best grip in most situations when fighting in close quarters. The MP-40 is very maneuverable and controllable when held this way and you can lay down very precise fire with it at close range. The recoil also doesn't present a major obstacle to accurate lengthy bursts, given enough skill. All in all, it's a wonderful weapon. And it's especially effective under 100 yards.

Before we get to the skink, CM should model the Flakpanzer IV Kugelblitz. The coolest tactical AA gun in the world. Twin 30mm belt-fed auto cannons in an armored turret... *drool* If somebody would do a model of one and take some pictures and send them in, Kwazy could have the textures for it ready to go.

The MP-40 is given a higher rating at close range in CM because of it's excellent ability to deliver precise controllable firepower in large volumes, especially in a close quarters firefight where it would be very quick to be brought on target, even in very tight situations. I agree with the superior rating at close range. The MP-40 handles like a dream and is deadly accurate and quick to employ in well-trained hands. And I would expect it to have an advantage in many close-in situations.

Did the Germans have any sort of arty that could approximate an airburst effect like VT over the ground? And if so, is it available in CM? Will it be available in CM2? I don't recall hearing of any such thing.

Steve: Even if in theory all crewmen know how to do the others' jobs, I think it's safe to say that in most tanks the gunner is the gunner for a reason. Namely that he is the best gunner of the bunch and they want the most well-trained accurate shooter on the main gun so they don't all die in some fiery explosion when the other tank's gunner gets off an accurate shot first. Now, I understand that individual crewmen can't be tracked in CM or CM2. But in the case of two-man turrets and the commander getting shot, we know for a fact in this case that the gunner has been taken out, also. And since we know this with a certainty, it can perhaps be accounted for in some way. I was thinking maybe having CM2 do a check for two-man turreted tanks to see if they've lost their commander (hit while looking out hatch), and if so, then just apply a negative modifier for main gun accuracy, especially at long range. As you say, this isn't much of a factor when all your crews are green or conscript to begin with, but it becomes more important later when regular and vet crews start to show up. What do you think about the longer shock period for two-man turreted tanks who lose their commander/gunner, as opposed to tanks that have separate gunners?

Any opinions on my last post? Curious what others think about the subject.

A very good point has been raised about tank commanders getting killed when they also happen to be the gunner for the tank. Steve mentioned shock being an issue. But in the case of Russian tanks with two-man turrets, I would think the situation would be much worse. First off, if the commander gets killed, you not only have lost your leader but your only gunner, as well. This is a really bad double hit on the tank crew. And thus I would think that the tank would tend to stay in a shock status much longer for a two-man turreted tank that loses it's commander than one with a separate gunner. Also, since the only properly trained gunner is now dead (or drooling in the corner, being not very helpful at the moment ), this leaves only crewmen who likely barely know how to operate the main gun to shoot it. This should then result in a massive accuracy penalty on all main gun shots taken after the tank commander goes down, for all but extreme close range shots. Long range shots of any kind would be especially inaccurate. [ January 31, 2002, 03:18 PM: Message edited by: Lee ]

rexford: I was referring to the difference in resistance between two homogeneous armor plates and one thick plate of equal thickness to the two plates. Since you say you got this info. just recently, I assumed that it perhaps was not included in the book. And thus you would have to give this new information to Charles separately, so he could consider it for inclusion in his armor modeling. This lower penetration resistance for extra bolted on homogeneous plates, as opposed to one thick homogeneous armor plate, makes a big difference in whether a tank gets penetrated in many situations, if it uses such armor. This new information could mean one of the most significant improvements to the armor penetration modeling in CM that has happened in quite awhile.